Knox students react to ‘Innocence of Muslims’ film

Protesters respond to clips of “The Innocence of Muslims” posted on YouTube. The clips portrayed the Prophet Muhammad as a womanizer and child abuser. (Courtesy of http://tinyurl.com/8gwl28e)

Knox film critics and religion majors have a new cause to discuss — and to perhaps feel disgusted about: “Innocence of Muslims,” a shoestring-budget film that depicts the Islamic prophet Muhammad as a womanizer, vigilante and false prophet.

Two weeks ago, a 13-minute preview was translated into Arabic and put on YouTube, causing outrage and rioting at American embassies and consulates across the Middle East and Muslim-majority countries.

At a protest in Benghazi, Libya, a local militia took advantage of the protest and stormed an American consulate, killing veteran ambassador Christopher J. Stevens. Ongoing riots have killed 19 in Pakistan.
Much of the violence was incited by radical clerics, who took advantage of anti-American sentiments and exaggerated rumors of the films depiction of Muhammad, according to Israel National News.

“Even if I wasn’t Muslim, I would be insulted. This is clearly only supposed to make fun of the prophet. Not to mention, the production value is terrible,” senior Hatim Mustaly, an Indian Muslim that moved to the U.S. as a teenager, said.

Junior Abesh Aziz said that while he “was insulted,” it was also part of “the normal Islamophobia we experience every day in the West.”

In one scene of “Innocence of Muslims,” Muhammad is chased around tent poles by two sandal-wielding women after being caught in bed with a slave, as he shouts, “The battle, I’m late for the battle, leave me, I have to go to the battle!”

In the next, he is covered in blood, shouting, “Every non-Muslim is an infidel! Their lands, their women, their children, are our spoils!” thrusting his sword as CGI flames burst around him.

Islam’s tenets hold images of the Prophet, specifically his face, to be blasphemous. Graphic novels and films that tell his story typically find creative ways around showing his face to avoid this offense.

The film was produced by Egyptian-American Nakoula Bassely Nakoula, who falsely identified himself as an Israeli Jew named Sam Bacile in interviews leading up to the film’s limited release.

Nakoula is a convicted fraudster, whose fake checks earned him 12 months of jail time between 2010 and 2011. He was on bail when the film was made and voluntarily spoke to the police when the riots erupted.

All of the religious references in the film were dubbed, and as a result, a number of actors and actresses have come out against the film. At least one court case is pending against Nakoula, according to New York Daily News. The Arabic translation of the film, however, glossed over the dubbed nature of these references.

“The film is a testament to the fact that unfortunately people who are blinded by their own xenophobia, or are driven towards their own ugly ends, will create any lie or stir any controversy and the rest of us have to deal with the consequences,” senior Rana Tahir, President of the Islamic Club, said.

Pastor Terry Jones, best known for his highly controversial “Burn a Koran Day,” which elicited similar reactions across the world, helped promote the film in the United States.

Tom Courtright is a columnist for The Knox Student, primarily covering Africa. He grew up in Kilimanjaro, Tanzania and is currently studying international relations, history and journalism. He begins his volunteer term with Peace Corps in September 2014, on the Pacific island of Fiji.

Sahih Muslim (1:33) – the Messenger of Allah Muhammed said “I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah”

Sahih Bukhari (8:387) – Allah’s Apostle Muhammed said “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah’. And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally.”

Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 327: – “Allah said ‘A prophet (Muhammed) must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”

“a shoestring-budget film that depicts the Islamic prophet Muhammad as a womanizer”

Koran (33:50) – “O Prophet! surely We have made lawful to you your wives whom you have given their dowries, and those whom your right hand possesses out of those whom Allah has given to you as prisoners of war, and the daughters of your paternal uncles and the daughters of your paternal aunts, and the daughters of your maternal uncles and the daughters of your maternal aunts who fled with you; and a believing woman if she gave herself to the Prophet, if the Prophet desired to marry her– specially for you, not for the (rest of) believers; We know what We have ordained for them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess in order that no blame may attach to you; “. NOTE: Allah marks all women as targets for Muhammeds unquenchable lust

Sahih Muslim (8:3460) – Muhammed asked “Why didn’t you marry a young girl so that you could sport with her and she sport with you, or you could amuse with her and she could amuse with you?” NOTE: pedophilia

Sahih Muslim (8:3311) – ‘A’isha reported that Allah’s Apostle Muhammed married her when she was seven years old, and he was taken to his house as a bride (consummated/had sex) when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old.’ NOTE: this little girl was Muhammeds favorite wife, out of 13; child rape

Sahih Bukhari (5:268) – “The Prophet Muhammed used to visit all his wives in a round, during the day and night and they were eleven in number.” NOTE: sexual gluttony by Muhammed

Tabari VIII:117 – “Dihyah had asked the Messenger for Safiyah when the Prophet chose her for himself… the Apostle traded for Safiyah by giving Dihyah her two cousins. The women of Khaybar were distributed among the Muslims.” NOTE: sex slavery & sex trafficking by Muhammed

Tabari IX:139 – “You are a self-respecting girl, but the prophet is a womanizer.” Words spoken by the disappointed parents of a girl who had ‘offered’ herself to Muhammad (he accepted).

Another vignette not mentioned in this article was when Muhammad ordered his men to punish an old woman who was acritic of Muhammed. In the movie they literally rip apart the body of an elderly woman named Umm Qirfa by tying her limbs to camels then sent in opposite directions.

Ibn ishaq 980. – ‘She was a very old woman, wife of Malik. Her daughter [and another] were also taken. Zayd ordered Qays to kill Umm Qirfa and he killed her cruelly by putting a rope between her legs and to two camels and driving them until they rent her in two).’

Ok….so three vignettes in the movie, accurately portraying event about Muhammed, backed up by Islamic ‘holy’ scripture.

If these vignettes about Muhammed are true, as shown, it seems that what Muslims really object to is the truth being revealed about their ‘holy’ prophet.

If you don’t have the courage to name yourself, it makes it clear you are here for one thing only, and that’s the same thing Nakoula came for; to insult and outrage. You and the extremist clerics feed off each other; by yourself, your ideology loses it’s raison d’étre.

Secondly, you sound like an atheist (though may not be). So am I. But I realized long, long ago that that approach leads to one thing only; conflict. You strengthen those you oppose (religious extremists) by attacking their beliefs so directly.

And last, but not least, all these Qu’ran quotes probably exist. The translation may be shitty, but hey; Jesus said “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” Violence is justified by defense of the divine, to the ultra-religious at least. This is not unique to Islam; but your oversimplification of a vast, complicated religion helps piss them off and justify their argument that Westerners want to bring an end to Islam.

I have to ask, how is quoting Islamic scripture insulting or outrageous? Is it only so if an infidel quotes it, but not so if a Muslim, an imam or an ayatollah quotes it? And, is Islam so brittle that it crumbles if it is simply read and questioned? You attack my motives, Tom, as some sort of agitator, but what about the truth about what I said?

Why would quotingIslamic scripture and questioning it inevitably lead to conflict and violence as you posit? Are Muslims some sort of automatons that are preprogrammed for violence, or simply incapable of controlling their emotions and reacting on some kind of primal violent instinct? Of course not! So the answer is that they must choose to commit violence. Don’t you want to know why they make that choice, when others do not?

You state “Violence is justified by defense of the divine, to the ultra-religious at least”. I disagree, unless we accept religious violence as a societal norm, which I don’t. Do you? I think any rational person would reject ‘violence in the defense of the divine’ as justifiable.

Regarding your quote from Jesus, if you examine his life and teachings, you will understand that this is a metaphor for shaking up the ancient status quo with his philosophy of love, forgiveness and redemption in a world of hate, revenge and retaliation.

Jesus never carried a sword, used a sword, engaged in violence or warfare with a sword, nor instructed his followers to do the same. Your attempt at some sort of moral equivalency falls flat when you understand that Muhammed actually DID carry a sword, used a sword, engaged in violence and warfare with a sword, and DID instruct his followers to do the same.

Tom, I can tell that you are a smart fellow. But your views on Islam are based on what you think, not what you know. By that I mean I doubt that you have taken the time to actually read Islamic scripture, the Koran, Ahadith, Sirat Rasul Allah, Umdat al-Salik, and see for yourself what is actually in there. I doubt you have found out from direct Islamic sources what Muhammed actually said, did, preached and mandated. If you have, I stand corrected, but….

Tom, I have spent a lot of time in Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, and Islamic countries. I know there is no utopia on earth, and I know that there is a different civilizational consciousness for each of these. Why is it that we aren’t writing about Buddhist violence? Hindu outrage? Christian insult (which there is plenty of)? Why in the 21st century is Islam the only religion that consumes our time with violence, death fatwas, church burnings, suicide bombings, decapitations, hand amputations, perpetual rage, honor killings, acid attacks, airliner attacks, jihadi holy war, femmenine oppression?

I posit that these societal morbidities are manifestations of Islamic civilizational consciousness, the result of a culture built upon the values of Muhammed, just as Buddhism is built upon the values of the Guatama Buddha and Christianity is built upon the values of Jesus Christ.

So this inevitably leads us to the question of who was this Muhammed, who informs the consciousness of one fifth of humanity? What DID he preach, how did he live, what were his moral examples as a ‘holy’ prophet of a major religion?

Having read Islamic scripture for myself, I have a good understanding of Muhammed. My view is clearly politically incorrect, but it is true as can be verified by Islamic scripture written by Muslims.

As recorded by Muslims in the Koran, Ahadith, Sirat Rasul Allah and evinced in the Umdat al Salik, Muhammed was, factually a mass murderer, a human slaver and slave trafficker, a serial rapist, a sex slaver and sex trafficker, a child rapist, a brutal torturer, a heartless hand, foot and tongue amputator, a multiple head chopping decapitator, a looting stealing thief, an intolerant bigot, an abusive misogynist, a genocidist and self proclaimed terrorist.

It seems, objectively, that rather than being a ‘holy prophet’, Muhammed was some sort of sadistic sociopath. What kind of ‘holy’ man would exterminate entire villages, decapitate 700 men and boys in a single afternoon, commit multiple rape, have sex with a little 9 year old girl, burn out the eyes of some pathetic criminals with hot iron pokers, hack off the hands and feet of people as a form of justice, steal the property of others as his living? Jesus? No. Buddha? No? The Bab (Baha’i)? No.

Only Muhammed.

Again, each and every one of these traits is recorded by Muslims in the Islamic texts. It’s not me just making up this rather shocking stuff. I’m just the one pointing it out from their resources.

It is important to understand that in the first decade of his ‘prophethood’, Muhammed did preach some relatively benign teachings. This is known as the Meccan period. When Muhammed left Mecca for Medina, he replaced these peaceful teachings through the Islamic doctrine of abrogation with violence and jihad (holy war) theology.

So, there we have it; a means of understanding Islamic violence as a manifestation of Muhammeds values. Terror as a theological foundation. Violence as religious morality.

Politically incorrect….but true.

I look forward to your reply, Tom. And I thank you and the Knox Student for having the courage to engage in this discussion. Lastly, I encourage Muslims to engage in this discussion, to try to refute my positions.

For someone claiming to be well read you have a number of factually incorrect statements in your response, the most obvious of which being “Why in the 21st century is Islam the only religion that consumes our time with violence, death fatwas, church burnings, suicide bombings, decapitations, hand amputations, perpetual rage, honor killings, acid attacks, airliner attacks, jihadi holy war, femmenine oppression?” I can only assume from this quote that you are quite selective about the news sources you follow. While it is true that the US sees very few of these things (keep in mind we also do not have much of the “Muslim Violence” you seem to see everywhere), many parts of the world do from people of all religions. Also recall the shooting of the Sikh Temple over the summer by a white supremacist. While he is certainly not a religious extremist he is an extremist none the less. The point that Tom was making is that extremists in any ideology tend to cause violence or disturbance of some kind yet when people of different races or creeds than Islam are the perpetrators it does not get lumped into a single category.

You also claim to represent many groups in the comments you are making. I would like you to withdraw that statement. This is because nearly every group of people you name has a belief in tolerance and understanding. By characterizing Islam in the way you are, you are being quite insulting and factually incorrect. While you may find some Muslims similar to the group you are attacking, that does not at all mean they are a majority, or even a sizable minority faction. To put it in comparison it would be like saying all Christians believe that humans coexisted with Dinosaurs because you have proof that some think that.

Also something to be kept in mind is how you classify religions. While you make continually bad arguments for comparing Mohammad to Jesus, you mention nothing of the other profits. Since you are so well read in Islam you should know that Jesus is viewed as a prophet in Islam. Also there is an incredible list of shared profits between the two religions. Or how about all the talk or slavery, stoning cheating wives, rape, murder, and war in the bible? Any wise person would tell you that those scenes are supposed to teach the more educated, are a representation of ancient times, or are parts that the Church has simply evolved from. Why do you only hold Islam accountable for what is in their Holy Book? Keep in mind that the first books of the bible are taken from the Jewish Torah so you had better start torching those religions too.

In essence you are making the argument that because bad things happen in a book that people read the religion that promotes that book should be shunned, held accountable for all its believers indiscretions and not be respected in any way shape or form. Better call the printing press to get Catcher in the Rye pulled for killing John Lennon.

You claim that you are doing nothing more than questioning the Islamic scripture. This is blatantly false. Start a club that analyzes scripture if that is your intent. Calling out all of a religion for what a few followers do is just plain dumb. You are letting hate breed hate, and that’s not right. Harming of others should certainly be condoned, but not the religion of nearly a quarter of the world’s population.

This isn’t a discussion – this is your xenophobic, hateful, extremely selective, ignorant rant. And you know, while it may not bode well for your mental health, it’d be best for the rest of us if we just let you rant to yourself (or as I’m sure you’ll spin it, us closing our minds to the ‘truth’ you’ve bravely discovered).

And last but not least, as you seem so concerned about your own personal legacy in ‘defeating Islam’, have you ever heard of Anders Brevik?

I stated clearly that I do not believe in utopia, and that no civilization is free of crime or violence. Events like the white supremecist shooting at the Sikh temple is committed in spite of the teachings and examples of Buddha or Jesus, not because of them. If we stand against this doctrine of white supremecy, which we must, and against murder and violence in the name of white supremecist ideology, must we not also stand against the doctrine of Islamic supremacy and murder and violence in the name of Islam?

The issue is not whether some criminals commit violence – they do – but whether the doctrine they follow sanctions that violence and seeks to subjugate others under that ideology.

The grotesque violence you reference in the old testament is another attempt at moral equivalency that again holds no water when compared to the grotesque violence in Islam. The specific wars violence and sexual acts were time and place specific, and there is no mandate that I can find to continue them as a universal, unending mandate of Judaic supremecism.

Islamic violence IS doctirne, IS mandated, IS universal, and IS unending. What, Payton, do you think these verses, spoken by Muhammed 1,400 years ago mean:

Muslim (1:33) – the Messenger of Allah Muhammed said “I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.”

Bukhari (8:387) – Allah’s Apostle Muhammed said “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah’. And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally.”

Muslim (1:30) – The Messenger of Allah Muhammed said “I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah.”

Muslim (1:149) – Abu Dharr reported: “I said: Messenger of Allah (Muhammed), which of the deeds is the best? He (Muhammed) replied: ‘Belief in Allah and Jihad in His cause'”

Muslim (20:4645) – Muhammed said: “There is another act which elevates the position of a man in Paradise to a grade one hundred (higher), and the elevation between one grade and the other is equal to the height of the heaven from the earth.” Abu Sa’id asked: “What is that act?” He (Muhammed) replied: “Jihad in the way of Allah! Jihad in the way of Allah!”

Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 327: – Allah said “A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”

The GREATEST ACT is jihad in the way of Allah?

Fight against people untils they submit and confess the shahada (there is no god but Allah and Muhammed is his messenger), and ‘slaughter as we slaughter’?

Killing them to manifest Allah’s religion?

These, Payton, after you clear the smoke away from the rituals, misdirection and dissembling are the prime directives of Islam, the most important theological pillar of Islam. This is true because it is what Allah commanded and what Muhammed, the ‘holy’ prophet and messenger of Allah actually did.

A final thought on the Bible – clearly Judeo-Christianity records humanity in a barbaric and dangerous age. The stories of the old testament reflect this, of course. But the theology, the values clearly evolve from the primitave, revenge based, violence of early civilization to the universal law of the 10 commandments and the New Covenant of Jesus. In short, Judeo-Christianity is a journey from the violent to the peaceful.

Islam on the other hand, as I already pointed out, started peacefully, but then devolved into violence, culminating in Jihad holy war as the central theological pillar of the religion.

Payton, it wasn’t the peaceful preachings of Muhammed in Mecca that made him and Islam powerful and successful. It was Jihad. The Islamic calendar supports this, as year 1 in the Islamic calendar does not start with the birth of Muhammed as one might expect, or when he gave his ferst sermon, but rather with the Hijra (his flight to Medina) where he began Jihad theology. That’s fairly significant in Islamic civilizational consciousness, don’t you think?

You state “By characterizing Islam in the way you are, you are being quite insulting and factually incorrect.” Again, I am not ‘characterizing Islam’, but simply reporting what Islam ACTUALLY says and what Muhammed ACTUALLY did. It characterizes itself by the words and deeds of Muhammed, and in the writings of the Muslims themselves.

Thank you, though, for raising the issue of why most Muslims are not Jihadists. This is an important question that deserves discussion. Perhaps these peaceful non-Jihadi Muslims see themselves as Meccan Muslims who follow the teachings of Muhammed during his first 10 years, and reject the Medina doctrine. In doing so, they violate their own doctrine and effectively become Islamic apostates. They, of course will reject this reasoning, so there must be another reason.

Perhaps the answer can be found in an examination of other totalitarian ideologies (yes, Islam is a totalitarian ideology). In Cambodia, it was not the entire civilization who engaged in genocide, but rather a small group of committed Khmer Rouge led by the despicable Pol Pot. The civilization submitted to Pol Pot and his ideology, and paid a devastating price.

Hitlers NAZI Germany is another good example. Most Germans weren’t Aryan supremecists or even members of the NAZI party. When German civilization submitted to a small group of committed NAZI’s led by the despicable Adolph Hitler and his NAZI ideology, they, like the Cambodians, also paid a devastating price.

History is replete with examples of small groups of enthusiatic men following a charismatic yet evil leader, and great civilizations falling to these tyrants.

But there is also another explanation, that it is permissible to feign frienship and act peacefully, as long as it done in the ultimate furtherance of Islam.

The friendly Muslim next door has to make a hard choice every day. The Koran 2:216 commands – “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.”

Koran 5:51 commands – “O you who believe (Muslims)! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.”

So if a Muslim is your friend, and is not fighting, is he or she really a Muslim, as they are violating these directives from Allah and Muhammed? Is it permissable for Muslims to just cast aside parts of the Koran they dont like? The answer is no.

As recorded in the Islamic Sharia Law manual, lying and deception is actually theologically sanctioned:
Umdat al-Salik (p. 746 – 8.2): “Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N:i.e. when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory… it is religiously precautionary in all cases to employ words that give a misleading impression…

Please do some homework and research the Islamic terms ‘taqiyya’ and ‘kitman’ for further explanation.

Payton (and any of our fellow Muslim readers out there), how does one reconcile the clear and direct mandate to not take Christians and Jews as friends, when Allah and Muhammed tell Muslims not to. By all accounts, Islam is not a cafeteria religion, where Muslims can pick and choose what they like.

Also, I would like to ask if any of you readers out there if they would feel comfortable having a KKK Klansman, a neo-NAZI, a Black Panther, a member of the Manson Family as a next door neighbor. Would it be OK for them to practice their rituals, dress in white robes and swastikas, promote the ideology of their leaders, as long as they didn’t engage in specific violence?

I doubt it, because we find the all forms of supremecism objectionable, and we know the philosophy of these movements is repulsive and anathema to the notions of human dignity, individual human rights, liberty and human freedom.

Why then, is it so unreasonable to critically examine Muhammed and his ideology? Would standing up to the likes of Hitler and NAZI’sm or Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge also be ‘letting hate breed hate’, as you characterize it?

One more quick thought…it deoesn’t matter to me if ‘Christians believe that humans coexisted with Dinosaurs.’ That is their right…as long as it doesn’t infringe upon the right of Buddhists to believe that Siddhartha was conceived after Queen Maya dreamt that a white elephant with six white tusks entered her right side, and ten months later Siddhartha was born.

People have the right to believe or not believe whatever they want. People do not have the right to violate other peoples rights.

I am with Tom on this one, your rational that Judeo-Christian violence can be dismissed but Islamic cannot is unconscionable. Also for trying to tell me to look up terms you are pretty bold considering you don’t understand that the word “jihad” literally means struggle and the “fight” you constantly refer to is about an inner fight for faith and what is right over what feels good. Many Christian theologies have the same doctrine. As well as many religions “mandate” that their followers actively try to convert non-believers if you are willing to use the word so loosely.

Congrats on the amount of cognitive dissonance it must take for you to go about on your daily life.

Thanks again for your reply. But, alas, you are wrong…or at least not fully aware or informed.

Concerning Judeo-Christian violence, we all admit that Jews and Christians (Buddhists too) commit sins and crimes. And, we must admit that Churches and the teachings of church men have in history led to violence. You are falling into the trap of confusing ‘Churchianity’ (the mandates of church men) with Christianity (the teachings of Jesus Christ).

The important question is whether or not that violence follows the teachings and examples of the founders of those respective ideologies, and whether that violence is sanctioned by the founders.

Buddhists kill, rape, steal, terrorize, enslave. But they do so as weak and failed human beings, not because of the teachings and examples of the Guatama Buddha, but in spite of them.

Jews kill, rape, steal, terrorize, enslave. But they do so as weak and failed human beings, not because of the Ten Commandments, but in spite of them.

Islamic jihadists, the most pious of Muslims, also kill, rape, steal, terrorize, enslave. But they do so NOT as weak and failed human beings, but precisely because of and in accordance WITH the teachings and examples of the Muhammed.

Can you not see the difference?

Again, I challenge you or any other reader out there to cite specific examples of Buddha or Jesus raping, killing, looting, terrorizing, or committing genocide. You simply won’t be able to produce them.

And again, concerning the violence of the Old Testament, it was clearly replaced with the Ten Commandments, as early human consciousness clawed its way from the primitive to the civil.

You are correct that the word Jihad means struggle. But that is not the only definition as you imply. In Islamic theology, there is greater Jihad, lesser Jihad, holy war Jihad, and the civilizational Jihad of the current Muslim Brotherhood.

Merriam-Webster defines:
ji·had noun \ji-ˈhäd, chiefly British -ˈhad\
Definition of JIHAD
1: a holy war waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty; also : a personal struggle in devotion to Islam especially involving spiritual discipline
2: a crusade for a principle or belief

Question #1:
What is meant by ‘fighting’ in Koran (2:193) – “And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion be only for Allah.”?

Is this
a) an islamic boxing match with referees?
b) an inner spiritual struggle?
c) a supremecist mandate to wipe out all other religions through violence?

I’ll choose ‘c’ for $100, Alex!

Question #2:
When Muhammed said in Sahih Bukhari (52:220) – “I have been made victorious with terror”, was he
a) just joking like some 7th century Seinfeld?
b) lying? (but why would someone lie about terrorism?)
c) telling the truth?

Again, I’ll take ‘c’ for $1,000 Alex!

If Muhammed was indeed telling the truth, engaged in terror and was victorious with terror, doesn’t this make the ‘holy’ prophet of Islam by his own admission an Islamic terrorist?

And when Koran 33:21 says:
لَقَدْ كَانَ لَكُمْ فِي رَسُولِ اللَّهِ أُسْوَةٌ حَسَنَةٌ لِّمَن كَانَ يَرْجُو اللَّهَ وَالْيَوْمَ
Transliteration: Laqad kana lakum fee rasooli Allahi oswatun hasanatun
English: “Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern of conduct”
Doesn’t it seem to logically follow that if Muhammed was a self proclaimed terrorist, and that he represents a beautiful pattern of conduct, that terrorism is indeed a central construct in Islamic civilizational consciousness?

Payton, you are thinking and questioning…that’s good! As I stated earlier, I encourage you to question what I write, debate it, discuss it, test it…seek the truth for yourself in the Islamic texts as I have.

I assume you are a Knox student, and as a student you are on a journey of education and truth. Please don’t be a lemming and succumb to the mantra of politcal correctness, willful ignorance, or emotionalism. Seek the truth for yourself. Most importantly, don’t be afraid to

ASK THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT QUESTIONS!

Your friend in peace,

~ The Infidel Alliance

The Infidel Alliance

Sep 28, 2012

Clearly overlooked this one some how:

Christians kill, rape, steal, terrorize, enslave. But they do so as weak and failed human beings, not because of the teachings and examples of Jesus Christ, but in spite of them.

Your emotional reply was not unexpected. But thanks for keeping the discussion going, and for promoting my blogsite.

You accuse me of xenophobia, but objectively Tom how can I be xenophobic after having clearly indicating my support of the rights of Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, Christians, Ahmadiyya, Buddhists, Baha’i, atheists, homosexuals, women, children and apostate Muslims? Can’t you do be more intellectually honest than that? My position may not assuage your politically correct sensibilities nor comport with your doctrinal ignorance of Islam, but it is the absolute antithesis of xenophobia!

And I must ask, where specifically have I been ‘hateful, extremely selective, ignorant or ranting’? Pleace cite a specific example.

Yes, I have heard about the repulsive criminal Anders Breivik. I reject his savagery every bit as much as I reject the savagery of Muhammed or the savagery of the Islamic Jihadists who decapitated journalist Daniel Pearl, or who pinned a a death fatwa against Ayyan Hirsi Ali by stabbing a dagger into the heart of filmmaker Theo Van Gogh.

What does a criminal like Anders Breivik have to do with whether or not what was represented in that silly little movie about Muhammed was truthful or not? Nothing. That was what this whole discussion is about.

This discussion is not about a lone Norweigan madman, but the truth about Muhammed, a man who killed and mutilated and terrorized more people than Anders Breivik could ever dream about. Is a man like Breivik worthy of being upheld as a ‘holy prophet’? Why then is a man like Muhammed who was a thousand times more savage?

I’ll readily admit that I am committed to the ideological destruction of Islam, same as I am committed to the ideological destruction of NAZI’sm or any other totalitarian ideology. I’m sure you would stand with me if I read Mein Kampf, dissected, questioned and discredited Hitler’s vile ideology based on his own words, wouldn’t you?

I work to discredit and defeat the ideology of Islam though discussion, dialogue and education (especially in the education of what Islam actually teaches, in the words of their own scripture) because Islam is a supremecist totalitarian ideology, and I stand against supremecist totalitarianism. Don’t you?

As Winston Churchill so lucidly explained about Islam “No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith.”

Tom, I know I’ve got you thinking, and that’s a good thing! I encourage you to question anything I’ve written…tear it apart, dismantle it, dispute it, debate it….but in the end always ask if it is true or not.

If you find any of my comments that are not true, please let me know and I will stand corrected. But please don’t devolve to emotionalism, political correctness, ad hominem attacks, ignorance or guesswork. Do the homework yourself and refute my positions with facts and truths (if you can).

Conflating violence in other religions with violence in Islam serves no real purpose. If violence is wrong in Christianity, that does not mean violence in Islam is OK.

That’s kind of like a kid caught stealing in a candy store who defends his actions by saying his big brother stole some candy too.

The important thing to keep in perspective is whether the ancient violence of the Old Testament is being imposed on people around the world today or not. Clearly it isn’t.

But the ancient violence of the Koran and Muhammed IS being imposed on people around the world today. It is being imposed on
– the Catholics in the Philippines
– the Ahmadiyya and Christians in Indonesia
– non-Muslims in Malysia
– infidel cafe patrons in Hindu Bali, blown up, twice
– infidel Australians in Sydney
– the Buddhists in Thailand
– the atheist Chinese in Xinjiang
– schoolchildren in Beslan Russia
– the Hindus & Sikhs in India
– the Baha’i and homosexuals in Iran
– the Chaldean Christians in Iraq
– the Jews in Mumbai
– the Coptic Christians in Egypt
– the Jews in Israel (facing another genocide)
– the Zoroastrians of Iran, virtually exterminated
– the Buddhists of Afghanistan, wiped out
– the Christians, pagans and animists of Nigeria, Uganda, Somalia, Sudan and Mali
– train commuters in Spain, blown up
– tube commuters in London, blown up
– the airport in Scotland, blown up
– journalist Daniel Pearl, decapitated
– cinematographer Theo Van Gogh, savagely assassinated
– Dutch politicians, death fatwa
– author Salman Rushdie, death fatwa
– Danish cartoonists, death fatwa
– Pan Am, Delta, United and American airline passengers
– office workers in the Twin Towers, twice
– defense workers in the Penatagon
– soldiers at Ft. Hood, assassinated
– recruiters in Little Rock, assassinated
Note: Look up the etymololgy of the word assassin
– Times Square pedestrians
– Jewish Centers in Caracas, Buenos Aires, Toronto & Seattle
– apostate Muslims in the Seychelles
– homosexuals in Iran, hanged

If one is objective, this looks pretty much like a pattern of Islam against all non-Islamic peoples, religions and civilizations in every corner of the globe. A kind of Islamic World War, a Global Jihad.

If one is politically correct, however, he would dismiss this pattern as just a few misguided Muslims who really don’t understand their religion, and not really a pattern at all.